Harvest groups of trees or use thinning instead of clearcutting

Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
Number of studies: 3
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Harvesting of timber within forests can be carried out by clearcutting sites or by various methods of harvesting a proportion of trees. Forests naturally undergo disturbances such as storms and lightning that can create open patches. Similarly, group selection harvesting and thinning are harvest methods designed to reduce the density of trees within a forest, without removing substantial areas of canopy cover, and may create a mix of different habitats which suit different species of butterflies and moths.

Note that by thinning, rather than felling a whole forest, larger areas would need to be managed in order to achieve the same timber harvest, though some degree of forest cover can be retained over that area.

For other options for harvesting timber, see “Use selective or reduced impact logging instead of conventional logging”, “Use patch retention harvesting instead of clearcutting”, “Use leave-tree harvesting instead of clearcutting”, “Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting” and “Retain riparian buffer strips during timber harvest”.

Study locations

Key messages

Three studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of harvesting groups of trees or using thinning instead of clearcutting. All three studies were in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES)

Richness/diversity (3 studies): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that the species richness of macro-moths was higher after a forest was harvested by thinning, than after harvest by patch-cutting or clearcutting, and the richness in the thinned forest was similar to an unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that forests managed by group selection harvesting had a similar species richness of moths to forests managed by single tree harvesting or clearcutting, but a lower species richness than unharvested forest. One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that moth species richness recovered at a similar rate after management by group selection harvesting or clearcutting, but recovery in both was slower than after shelterwood harvesting.

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2009 in three hardwood forests in Indiana, USA (Summerville 2011, same experimental set-up as Summerville 2013) found that timber harvesting method, including group-selection harvesting, did not affect the number of moth species, but all harvested forest stands had fewer moths than unharvested stands. One year after harvesting, there was no significant difference in the number of moth species between stands subjected to group-selection harvesting (40 species), single-tree harvesting (39 species) or shelterwood harvesting and clearcutting (46 species, data not separated), but all harvested stands had fewer species than unharvested stands (56 species). One year before harvesting, all stands had a similar number of moth species (group-selection: 100; single-tree: 85; shelterwood/clearcutting: 96; unharvested: 90 species). In 2008, forest stands (3–5 ha, 150–350 m apart) in three watersheds (500 ha, 10 km apart) were logged. In one watershed, four stands were harvested by group-selection (80% of trees removed) and four stands had random single trees removed. In a second watershed, three stands were shelterwood harvested (15% of trees removed), two stands were clearcut (100% of trees removed), and three stands were unharvested (no trees removed). In the third watershed, all four stands were unharvested. All stands had been clearcut around 60 years earlier. From June–August 2007 and 2009, moths were surveyed every 14 nights (five times/year) from 8pm–7am using a black-light trap placed 2 m above the ground in the centre of each forest stand.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Summerville K.S. (2011) Managing the forest for more than the trees: Effects of experimental timber harvest on forest Lepidoptera. Ecological Applications, 21, 806-816.
A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2011 in two hardwood forests in Indiana, USA (Summerville 2013, same study as Summerville 2011) found that after group-selection harvesting, the number of moth species did not recover faster than after clearcutting, and both were slower to recover than after shelterwood harvesting. Three years after group-selection harvesting, the total number of moth species (52 species/stand) was similar to after clearcutting (48 species/stand), and both were lower than before harvesting (group-selection: 100; clearcutting: 98 species/stand) or after shelterwood harvesting (73 species/stand). After group-selection harvesting, the number of specialist species (8 species/stand) was lower than before harvest (19 species/stand), or after shelterwood harvesting (23 species/stand). However, the number of herbaceous-feeding species was higher after group-selection harvesting (10 species/stand) and clearcutting (16 species/stand) than before harvesting (group-selection: 3; clearcutting: 4 species/stand), but remained similar after shelterwood harvesting (after: 6; before: 4 species/stand). In 2008, forest stands (3–5 ha, 350–750 m apart) in two watersheds (500 ha, 10 km apart) were logged. In one watershed, four stands were harvested by group-selection (80% of trees removed) and four stands were unharvested. In a second watershed, three stands were shelterwood harvested (15% of trees removed), two stands were clearcut (100% of trees removed), and three stands were unharvested. All stands had been clearcut around 60 years earlier. From June–August 2007 and 2009–2011, moths were surveyed every 14 nights (five times/year) from 8pm–7am using a black-light trap placed 2 m above the ground in the centre of each forest stand.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Summerville K.S. (2013) Forest lepidopteran communities are more resilient to shelterwood harvests compared to more intensive logging regimes. Ecological Applications, 23, 1101-1112.
A controlled, before-and-after study in 2007–2014 in two hardwood forest blocks in Indiana, USA (Murray et al. 2017) found that thinned areas had more macro-moth species than patch-cut or clearcut areas, and a similar number to unharvested areas. One–six years after management, the species richness of macro-moths in thinned areas (40–68 species/site) was higher than in patch-cut (30–52 species/site) or clearcut (34–54 species/site) areas, and was similar to shelterwood harvested (53–75 species/site) and unharvested areas (56–84 species/site). Before harvesting, all areas had similar species richness (thinned: 84; patch-cut: 99; clearcut: 96; shelterwood: 95; unharvested: 90 species/site). However, after management, the total species richness in the thinned and patch-cut block was 122–162 species, compared to 144–190 species in the shelterwood and clearcut block, whereas before management richness was similar (thinned/patch-cut: 203; shelterwood/clearcut: 198 species; statistical significance not assessed). Two ~100 ha regenerated forest blocks were managed in autumn 2008. In one “uneven-aged” block, two 2.0-ha, two 1.2-ha and four 0.4-ha areas were patch-cut, and the remaining area was thinned by single-tree selection. In one “even-aged” block, two 4.1-ha areas were clearcut, two 4.1-ha areas were shelterwood harvested (midstory and understory cleared), and the remaining area was not harvested. From May–August 2007 and 2009–2014, macro-moths were sampled on five nights/year (once/fortnight) using 12 W black-light traps. Traps were placed in the centre of 16 patches: four patch-cut and four thinned sites within the uneven-age block, and two clearcut, three shelterwood and three unharvested sites within the even-age block. Species represented by fewer than three individuals were excluded.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Murray B.D., Holland J.D., Summerville K.S., Dunning J.B., Saunders M.R. & Jenkins M.A. (2017) Functional diversity response to hardwood forest management varies across taxa and spatial scales. Ecological Applications, 27, 1064-1081.

Please cite as:

Bladon A.J., Bladon, E. K., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2023) Butterfly and Moth Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for butterflies and moths. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Butterfly and Moth Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use shelterwood harvesting instead of clearcutting Action Link	Awaiting assessment	3	Synopsis Link
Re-plant native trees in logged areas Action Link	Evidence not assessed	1	Synopsis Link
Harvest groups of trees or use thinning instead of clearcutting Action Link	Awaiting assessment	3	Synopsis Link